tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 19, 2014 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
intelligence community and the joint chiefs of staff and to bring those not cleared for release to the united states to be charged, tried and sentenced. sergeant bergdahl exchange has brought this issue to center stage. but if we dealt with these individuals in a responsible and legal way, we wouldn't be in this discussion discussing the merits to release five of them. guantanamo has operated outside the checks of the american judicial system serving as a gap between the principles that define us as americans and our willingness to abandon those principles in the name of national security. the withdrawal of american troops, the indefinite detention f troops is and the we have to ask yourselves do we have the legal authority to hold them indefinitely? now is the time to transferor
bring these men to trial, now while we can do so on our own terms and give the defense department the legal authority it needs to make the right decisions about these prisoners. it is costing us $2.7 million per detainee per year versus $34,000 at a maximum prison in the united states. more than 300 individuals convicted of crime related to terrorism are currently incarcerated in federal prisons with no escapes. the role in the benghazi attack is a great example of our ability to deal with high-profile terrorists safely and swiftly. he will not be brought to guantanamo. he will be brought to the united states to answer for his crimes in a federal court and punished in accord answer with the laws of this nation. i have every confidence to bring him to justice.
he said its continued operation mock ours values. it's time to put an end to this by supporting this amendment. let me use one more quote, in the words of the family members of the 9/11 victims, the current system is immoral, unlawful, counterproductive, unnecessary and has failed to deliver justice for the 9/11 attacks. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman -- >> i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chairman, i'd like to first recognize mr. moran's service on our committee. as just exhibited in the full committee, he is truly a passionate man, and i may say he's been absolutely, consistently passionate on this
issue. but despite his passion and reason, i stand in opposition to his amendment. the provisions contained in our bill are the same as current law. and have been carried in some form since fiscal year 2010 in both the appropriations bill and in the defense authorization bill. quite honestly, they need to remain there. the provisions we carry ensure that the remaining gitmo detainees who are judged to be the most dangerous will never be brought into our homeland where u.s. citizens could be threatened. there is a pretty strong and enduring consensus, and bipartisan consensus, in congress that quan taun moe should remain open, that the detainees should not be transferred to the united states for any reason, and that no facility should be built in the united states to house them. and as everyone here is aware,
as it's been mentioned in earlier debate, a number of detainees have been released from guantanamo and have gone back to the field, to the fight, and killed and wounded americans. the threat is real. we haven't quite left afghanistan. threats there are real. i strongly oppose his amendment and ask the house to give a strong negative vote and i eserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: that's what i thought. at this point, i'd like to yield the remaining time to the distinguished member of the committee from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half
minutes. mr. nadler: madam speaker, we are holding 154 people at guantanamo, 77 of whom have been cleared for release. they have been found guilty of nothing. are thought to be guilty of nothing. have been judged not to pose any danger. nonetheless, they're not released. there's no reason and no right for us to hold them further. the others should be brought to the united states and tried in a secure facility, tried for their offenses. mr. chairman, i wonder which of our colleagues doesn't believe in the american system of justice sni wonder which of us doesn't trust our own american courts? i wonder who among us doesn't believe in the bill of rights? who doesn't believe in the right to counsel or who doesn't have the right to establish their guilt or innocence in court. what we have at guantanamo is an assault to those beliefs. we have begun to let go of our freedoms bit by bit, by each executive order and each act of congress. we are giving away our right to
privacy and with this legislation we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law. the language in this bill prohibits move anything detainee into the united states or releasing any at all and guarantees we'll continue holding people indefinitely, people who may not be terrorists, may not be enemy combatants, some of whom we may suspect to be terrorists, none of whom have had a day in court. we will continue to hold them indefinitely without charge contrary to everything this ountry stands for. mr. cotton says this congress has judged these people to be dangerous people. this congress has no right to make such a judgment. people, to be found guilty, must be found guilty by a court, not a legislative body. because of this momentous challenge to the founding principles of the united states that no person may be deprived
of liberty without due process f law and certainly may not be deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law. this will give detainees no further constitutional rights. the supreme court ruled they would have the same rights at fwauntaun moe as they would have here. they should be brought here, tried in a federal court where they can be convicted or found guilty, instead of waiting for a military tribunal which has succeeded in finding nobody guilty at all. just because we think, or somebody in the government thinks that someone is a terrorist, does not mean that that person is a terrorist. he may or may not be, and does not mean he does not have his a right to his day in court. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from
new jersey reserves. the gentleman from virginia's ime has expired. mr. frelinghuysen: yes, madam chair, what about the justice for the victims, those who died on september 11, 2001? and what about justice for those that -- those five detainees that were released the other day in the prisoner ex-change? how is there justice there? they were among the worst of the worst. we need to keep the provisions in this bill. and -- and i urge a no vote, a strong no vote on this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to
mr. moran: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: and to yield to the gentleman from alabama for purposes of a colloquy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to engage in a colloquy regarding the nea's combat ship which represents the future small surface combatant for the united states navy this program is in its infancy but so far has cleared many hurdles and is well on its way to becoming an integral part of the fleet. the navy reduced the budget requests from four ships in fiscal year 2015 as they
projected last year to three ships. mr. chairman, your bill has further reduced the program to a recommended level of two ships. mr. chairman, would you agree that the l.t.s. is an important part of the navy's future fleet? mr. frelinghuysen: let me first salute the gentleman from alabama for his strong advocacy on behalf of the -- of this combat ship and let me say that this combat ship plays an extremely important role in the future of the navy's fleet. in fact, the ship represents nearly 1/6 of the 306-ship fleet the navy has expressed as its stated fleet requirement. during the markup of the bill, the committee spent as much time, if not more, on this issue than any other. in the end, we were extremely concerned with the strong words expressed by the secretary of defense with respect to the small surface combat requirements that these ships must have. since the combat ship does play
a vital role, we want to make sure we're buying the correct version. that's why we slowed the production. however, we recognize the importance of the industrial base, very much so. and we certainly don't want to let that in any way stagnate. so we provided funding for two ships to bridge the gap until the navy can verify the requirements and incorporate them into the production line. i do recognize that this is an important program for your community and that you've been a remarkable advocate, you've been on my case for quite a long time. i'm hugely admiring of your passion and determination. i want to assure you we'll continue to work with you to address your concerns. we'll continue to monitor as we proceed to conference with the senate and will work with the gentleman to ensure we adopt the right policy for our national security and the industrial base, including the very important shipyard in the gentleman's district in mobile,
alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your attention in this matter, i look forward to working with you and ranking member visclosky and subcommittee chairman rogers as we move forward. mr. byrne: as you said the l.c.s. plays an important role in the future of the navy's fleet. it's vitally important that congress not use sight of this and i not lose sight of the importance of this shipyard to my district. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. it's lee number 31, preprinted in the congressional record.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. lee of california. >> madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is eserved. the point of order is pursuant to house resolution 628. the gentlewoman from california -- oh the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, madam chair. i rise today remembering 12 years ago, when i stood on this floor and offered an amendment with the same purpose as the
amendment that i offer this evening, to prevent a war with iraq, to keep our young men and women, our troops, out of harm's way and to be prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned dollars as well as ensuring our national security. madam chair, we are all familiar with the reports coming out of iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place. we must not let history repeat itself. these calls to be dragged back into a war in iraq must be rejected because the reality is there's no military solution in iraq and i want to applaud the president for reiterating that again today and for making it clear that he does not want combat troops on the ground in iraq. this amendment would not allow funding for combat operations. this is a sectarian war with ng-standing roots that wrp inflamed when we invaded iraq. any solution must take into account respect for the entire
iraqi population. the change iraq needs must come from iraqis rejecting violence in favor of a peaceful democracy that represents all and respects the rights of all. our job is to continue to promote and support regional and international engagement, recognition of human rights and political reform, support for women and children and religious freedom. madam chair, after more than a decade of war, thousands of american lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, the american people are rightfully war-weary. the american people are not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past. a recent poll found 74% of the public is opposed to sending combat troops into iraq this amendment would not impact the president's ability to protect u.s. personnel or our embassies, we must do that it does not impair the president's ability to act if there's a direct threat to national security. as the president sid to congress, doing so would be consistent with his
responsibility to protect u.s. citizens at home and abroad. finally it doesn't impact the ability to gather intelligence. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized fed. mr. frelinghuysen: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. what's occurring in iraq is complicated and dangerous and violent. and this is a complicated issue. the gentlewoman seeks to address with multi-faceted policy ramifications that really cannot be fully debated in an amendment in this short period of time. the situation in iraq remains
highly complicated, very dangerous and does, i believe and many i believe pose an imminent threat to the u.s., particularly regional security. witness the fact that the president has sent over a number of advisers to either protect the embassy or work with the iraqi military. this amendment, in my judgment, goes too far, as it attempts to tie the u.s. government's hands, i.e. the commander in chief's hands in navigating the come plated situation we face relating to threats coming from iraq, recognizing that half of the country is now in the hands of the islamic state of iraq and syria. we have to be realistic. what this amendment would do is remove any possibility of the u.s. engaging in any circumstance even if it would be in the best interest of our own country or allies.
for example, this would preclude the u.s. from providing any assistance to the iraqi government to defeat a terrorist group inside of iraq and we be on the verge of doing exactly that. giving the rising terrorist threats coming from within iraq and again, almost half the country is in the hands of terrorists, this is a very ill-advised amendment and i strongly oppose and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: this amendment would not fund the combat operations in iraq. i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nolan: i rise in support of the lee amendment. the american people have invested 10 years of precious blood and pressure into this
conflict and the simple truth is the iraqi government and army have failed to win the confidence of their own people. the fact is, the army has cut and run leaving behind valuable equipment and we have no friends in this conflict. it's time to get out and stay out. thank you, madam chair and thank you, representative lee, for your amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: this amendment sends the wrong message to the iraqi people who have suffered a great deal and i recognize the loss of our soldiers and the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families. i think this is a very ill-advised amendment and i strongly oppose. i yield back the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ou have 2 1/2 minutes. the e: i yield 2 time to gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i'm here to support the amendment to prohibit the use of ground troops in iraq. you know, what the american people are seeking is an end to 10, 12, 11 years of a war without end. the american people are seeking attention to the needs of this country, the veterans that fought in that war are seeking proper care for invincible wounds of this war. the only thing we need to protect, and it's not about us going into a conflict and picking sides and fundamentally
a a religious war where there will be no end for us, we must avoid and prevent combat troops to be in iraq. we do that because the american people are against it. we do that because it is the moral imperative and we do that because we learned a lesson from history and history has taught us this is a war that will not end. we have an opportunity to end it. we have the opportunity to demand of the international community that they use diplomacy to solve the problem in the region. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: i thank the congresswoman. the malaki government has excluded huge portions of his population.
because of that, there is a conflict in that country of his own making. what do which do if we send combat troops there, we will be his air force and ground troops, we shouldn't do that. that isn't the right thing. if we want to help, what we should do is engage the regional community, the countries around iraq and iraqi leaders in a diplomatic solution that hopefully includes them having a more inclusive, less abusive government. that is the proper role of the united states, trying to stop us from being a combat troops. i think the gentleman is incorrect, we are right to stay out of this thing. what have we learned if 11 years has not taught us. training, we have given them plenty of training. we have trained them up the
wazoo. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from what -- california is recognized. ms. lee: combat operations will not solve the problem in iraq. this amendment would not fund combat operations. we should not repeat these terrible mistakes of the past. this amendment would not impact the ability of the united states personnel and our embassy. we want to protect the united states personnel and embassy. it would not impact the president's ability to provide unmanned intelligence. it would not -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. lee: may i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walberg of michigan, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section 10002, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to promulgate the directive by the office of federal contract compliance programs. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 628, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of my amendment that reiterate congress' objection to a proposed policy change by the
department of labor, office of federal contract compliance program. that would treat health care providers as federal contractors. in december, 2010, they quietly issued directive 293, asserting that contractual arrangements will trigger jurisdiction. this directive would reclassify a majority of hospitals in the united states as federal contractors, subjecting hospitals in your district and ne to ofccp's often crushing regulatory burden. with respect to tricare, the agency asserted its jurisdiction in the 2009 administrative case ofccp versus florida hospital of orlando. ofccp argued that the hospital was a federal subcontractor by virtue of its participation as a
provider in tricare network of providers. the agency took this troubling position despite the fact that the department of defense, which regulates tricare, previously concluded, and i quote, madam chair, it would be impossible to achieve the tricare mission of providing affordable health care for our nation's active duty and retired military members and their families if contracting rules were applied to the more than 500,000 tricare providers in the united states, end quote. unfortunately, the administrative law judge and the case did not heed d.o.d.'s warning and failed to see this policy change for what it is, expansion of government power over the health care sector. congress opposed this overreach in 2012 national defense authorization act collar fide
that a network provider is not a federal contractor or subcontractor. as chairman of the subcommittee on work force protections, i'm deeply concerned by this attempt tom expand its jurisdiction through executive fiat. i introduced the protecting health care providers, which would clarify that health care providers are not federal providers is subject to the jurisdiction. our actions to this issue have been successful in prompting them to place a moratorium on the policy. however as they have previously defied congress and the department of defense, i believe this amendment is necessary. therefore, i ask the house support my amendment that would prohibit funds to be used under this act for implementing this
overreach and affirmatively show the house will not support actions by the department of labor and ofccp. i reserve. mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition. i appreciate the thrust of the gentleman's amendment. i rise in opposition to it, however, because i think it is overly broad. one of the concerns i have is if it is adopted, i'm concerned about whether or not technical assistance could continue to be given to contractors and subcontractors and obviously given the complexity of the law, it would be helpful for them to have it and i would not want it to be prohibited. additionally, the amendment would appear to interfere with
e ofccp's ability to provide technical assistance under the current moratorium to help contractors and subcontractors to understand their obligations under the law. i appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. i'm concerned given the broadness of the amendment, it may inhibit the type of information and assistance that these contractors and subcontractors really do need. so for that reason, i am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> as -- mr. walberg: as d.o.d. has recognized and for purposes of tricare and the like, hospitals are not contractors. they do not contract with the federal government with the department of defense. so i don't see the reason for
continuing to address this issue any further for these contractors, at least as defined by ofccp. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentleman from has yielded back. is the gentleman prepared to close? mr. walberg: i am. this is an issue congress has spoken on, it's an issue that ofccp still continues to push. i believe we would be remiss if we allowed this to happen and allowed the concept that hospitals would be considered government contractors simply for providing health care under tricare and the like to our veterans, to our military, and certainly to any of our federal employees. i would appreciate support for this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. at the end of the bill, before she short tite 8 -- ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? mr. frelinghuysen: i object. the chair: objection is heard. the reading will resume. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, none of the funds made available to this act may be used in a contract with an entity if such company's sealed bid shows that such entity is incorporated or
chartered in behr mued or the cayman islands and their sealed bid or proposal shows that such entity was previously incorporated in the united states. the chair: pursuant to house resolution, the gentlewoman from connecticut and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker, i yield myself two minutes. my amendment would prohibit federal contracts issued by the department of defense from going to entity incorporated in bermuda and the cayman islands, two nations most often abused as tax havens. this body accepted a similar provision for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development earlier this month. according to a joint study by the u.s. public interest research group and citizens for tax justice, 70% of the companies in the fortune 500 use tax havened last year. these companies stashed nearly $20 trillion -- nearly $2
trillion offshore for tax purposes, with nearly 2/3 of that total being hidden away by just 30 companies. we just saw the medical device manufacturer, medtronic, announce it was effectively moving operations to ireland to escape its tax obligations that persistent and growing problem and we need to start taking action to rein it in we can start with this amendment. of the companies who have established subsidiaries in tax havens, nearly 2/3 have registered at least one in bermuda or in the cayman islands. the profits these companies claimed were earned in these two island nations in 2010 totaled over 1,600% of these countries' entire yearly economic output. these companies take advantage of our education system, our research and development incentives, our skilled work forest, and our infrastructure, all supported by u.s. taxpayers. they should not be allowed to pretend they are an american
company when it is time to get a defense contract, then claim to be an offshore company when the tax bill comes. and we should not spend taxpayer money on federal contracts to companies that have renounced their american citizenship in favor of an island tax haven. as i said, a similar amendment became part of the transportation and infrastructure bill. i urge my cleag -- colleagues to pass this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her ime. the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i assume there's no opposition on the other side of the aisle? mr. frelinghuysen: we do not oppose the amendment. mr. de-- ms. delauro: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr.
doggett. mr. doggett: that's very good to hear. i join in supporting this amendment as a co-author of it. multinational corporations that do business around the globe have an even greater interest in world order and in national security. they should not be paying a lesser rate of taxes than corporations that focus their business right here in america. unfortunately, some of them scheme to avoid their fair share and to shift the burden to smaller businesses and to individuals. some of these same companies have, on more than one occasion, paid more to their lobbyists to lobby this congress and the treasury to avoid paying taxes than they actually paid to the treasury. it's been a pretty wise investment for them because our tax code is a mess. it's riddled with preferences and loopholes and one exception after another. this amendment addresses one of the most egregious tax gimmicks.
that's where a corporation actually renounces its american citizenship. declare itself a citizen of some other country. and then continues operations in america, demanding the full protection of the laws and the military and the educational system that it refuses to contribute a fair share to pay for. tax lawyers call it an inversion. i call it a perversion of our tax laws. and to add insult to injury, some of these same corporations, which have abandoned their citizenship, then ask for american government contracts paid for with the very tax dollars from the small businesses and individuals to whom they have shifted the tax burden. american companies that stay and contribute to building our country and keeping her strong at home and abroad deserve a level playing field, and that's what this amendment does. the action that we take in approving this amendment today
sends a message to executives that they can pretend that their company is located on some caribbean beach to avoid paying taxes but congress is not going to put its head in the sand about this kind of tax dodging. i yield become. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: may i inquire how much time remains? you have one minute remaining. ms. delauro: -- the chair: you have one minute remaining. ms. delauro: i thank the chair. ban on ong proposed a businesses that claim a headquarters in a lower tax jurisdiction. 63 of the 100 largest publicly traded u.s. federal contractors reported having subsidiaries in tax havens in 2007. these companies are currently paying a tax rate of zero percent. so unless you believe tax reform should eliminate taxes for u.s.
companies, this avoidance is not about corporate tax reform. we need to send that clear message. if a company is going to abuse the tax loopholes at the expense of businesses that are paying their fair share, they will not be rewarded with defense contracts. i'm happy to hear and i urge my colleagues to make this stand with me again and to pass this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from louisiana and a member opposed each will have five
minutes. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. fleming: thank you, madam chairman. the amendment before you today holds the department of defense to curn current accepted d.o.d. policy and standards when appointing military chaplains. it maintains the status quo which has been well accepted for decades if not centuries. it affirms the spiritual role of chaplains in the u.s. armed services, preserving the integrity of the u.s. chaplain corps. i thank jim bridenstine and james lankford for their co-sponsorship of this bill. it was adopted last year in the d.o.d. appropriations on a bipartisan basis, though it was ultimately dropped from the consolidated appropriations act of 2014. i urge my colleagues to support its passage again today. chaplains, by definition, are ministers of spiritual needs to
people of secular institutions. they are equipped to do so because, like many other professionals, requiring a certain skill seth, chaplains possess a belief in god or a spiritual world view. chaplains are experienced in their field. educationally qualified. and are willing to serve and attend to the spiritual needs of all members of the armed services, regardless of whether or not that soldier, sailor, airman, or marine shares the same faith as that of the chaplain. current d.o.d. guidelines requires that the candidates be endorsed by a, quote, qualified religious organization. end quote. whose primary function is to, quote, perform religious ministries to a nonmilitary lay constituencies, end quote. and which holds tax exempt status as a church. faith and spiritual leadership are integral and inseparable from the institution of the chaplain corps. it would be difficult for an individual lacking in any faith
to be appointed as a military chaplain without firth dismantling the purpose of the chaplaincy and making significant changes to the d.o.d. policy. madam chairman, it is an oxy moron to have a secular -- an oxymoron to have a secular person attached to an organization as a chaplain? how can they minister to the spiritual needs of others? yet there continues to be a movement to appoint atheist chaplains in the mill tear. they do not have a spiritual rorledview and would not serve any identifiable need for service members that are not being served by the armed forces. there are a variety of ways to support armed services, including social workers and
counselors. service members can receive temporary and confidential counseling services from a licensed professional without any attachment to their records. in addition to these services, military chaplains can stand ready to faithfully and respectfully serve all service members with any resources they might need, regardless of whether the individual shares the chaplain's faith. my amendment would prevent d.o.d. from making changes to its long-standing appointment process that could undermine the integrity of the chaplaincy and interfere with the chaplains' responsibility to meet the religious needs of our brave men and women in uniform. i would like to thank the family research council and the chaplain light for their support and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this i thank you, madam chair, and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does toe the
gentleman rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: the gentleman has spoken much about the spiritual role of chaplains in the military. i'm very concerned at the impulse -- that the impulse here is related to sexual orientation and the limitation in serving as a chaplain in the united states military. i would tell the gentleman, at one time in my life, and i obviously took a bad turn in the road because i got involved -- involved in politics, i was in a roman catholic seminary. my god is a loving god. y god is a tolerant god. my god passes judgment on the goodness of a person's soul. in this day and in this world where there is so much hate and violence and anger, i think it's very disappointing that we in
public life would try to accentuate that there are differences between us that may cause us not to like each other. in each of us -- each of us seek ours god differently. we have different religions. we have different customs. we have different preferences. but it's important to find that chaplain, spiritual guide, who meets those needs to help us to find that just and forgiving and kind god. and i think it's wrong to foreclose any avenue for any american, particularly those who put the uniform of this country on and risk their lives for us and are under incredible stress to foreclose any -- stress. to foreclose any avenue of spiritual guidance and relief for them is wrong. i would simply close by noting
that there is a monument to thomas jefferson in washington, d.c. and one of the writings of jefferson is on the southeast portico. it says laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. as that becomes more developed and more enlightened, institutions must advance to keep pace with those times. we might as well require a man to wear, still, the coat which fitted him when a boy, as a civilized society to remain ever under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors. my vote would be a vote to have a tolerant policy in a tolerant country and i oppose the gentleman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman
reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: may i ask how much time i have. the chair: the gentleman has one minute. mr. fleming: it's interesting the gentleman argues that, amazingly that somehow that a chaplain is not going to be open to serving and spe -- serving the spiritual needs of all, whether they be gay or otherwise. there's nothing in this amendment that says anything about the choice of one sexual -- of one's sexual partner whatsoever. and in fact remember that we already have in our chaplaincy, we have wiccans, we have buddhist, we have muslims, we have christians, we have jews. many of those accept same-sex marriages. this deals purely with agent thism, which is very interesting because on the
battlefield, you have a chaplain who is serving the needs of a dying soldier and the soldier asks the chaplain, what happens fter my death and the answer is, there is nothing for you after death. -- disturbing ur thought. and i yield back. mr. visclosky: i stand for a tolerant nation and i stand in opposition for the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk, lee 33 printed in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33
printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentlewoman from california, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: this amendment would simply prohibit funding for any operations or activities pursuant to the 2002 authorization for use of military operations in iraq. why is this amendment necessary? more than two years ago, the 2002 authorization of the use of military force, this authorization remains on the books. two years ago, president obama declared the war in iraq is over and just yesterday, white house press secretary stated that the used for is no longer any united states government activity. in our appropriations committee, our chairman confirmed this bill
does not contain any funding to implement the 2002 authorization. that's good news and it should make supporting this amendment an easy thing to do. the american people need an affirmative vote that the war in iraq that began 11 years ago which took over 2,000 lives has come to an end and none of their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. on this appropriations bill, we only state very clearly that no funds may be obligated or expended for the authorization. congress should never allow them to repain on the books. we don't this for the farm bill or the transportation bill. we are all familiar with the reports coming out of iraq. once again i applaud president obama for reiterating there is
no military solution for the sectarian war and his clear position that the united states is not going to be returning to combat in iraq. this amendment does not limit the president's authority to act if there is a direct threat to our national security. as the president cited in his recent letter to congress, doing so would be consistent with his responsibilities to protect united states citizens. this amendment does not take away that authority. this amendment fully allows for the protection of the united states embassy and personnel and would not impede any thing from the united states military. supporting this amendment is just plain common sense. the american people deserve this vote and and long overdue and we should vote to ensure that our constitutional role is reasserted in warmaking.
i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. as the gentlelady knows, u.s. military action in iraq came to an end in december of 2011. i want to make sure she also knows that there are no funds, no funds in this act for military action in iraq pursuant to the iraq aumf resolution. its grant of authority has both practically and legally ended. this amendment is an amendment in sunshine of a problem, a problem that doesn't exist. this amendment is not about substance. it's about symbolism and intended to send a message that the united states has washed its hands of iraq which some believe
we haven't. at a time when sectarian tensions are at the highest levels and terrorists have succeeded in capturing large swaggets of territory in iraq and brutalizing the iraqi people after our troops have fought to protect them, what kind of message are we sending with this amendment to both the iraqi people and to the men and women who of our armed forces and our international armed forces who so valiantly served. there are no funds in this act for the purpose that the gentlelady is seeking to limit. the only thing this amendment would accomplish is to make a political statement, and i recognize from time to time, that needs to be done. but it sends the wrong message at the worst possible time. i don't believe that such an amendment has any purpose on our bill and i urge strong rejection
of the amendment and keep -- retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: i yield to our ranking member. mr. visclosky: this authorization is very dated. the world has changed and needs to be reconsidered and i deeply appreciate her efforts not just today on the floor but in committee and over the years to essentially force the issue and to ask this institution to reconsider what the authorities should be going forward, and i certainly support her effort. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. lee lie i think the ranking member for your comments and reasserting and reassuring members that our constitutional role is extremely important in
matters of war and peace. i yield to minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. excuse me, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: this congress has a constitutional obligation to approve military action before the president decides to shoot first and ask questions later. resolution ld enacted after 9/11 should not provide a basis for endless war. some of the same smart people that were talking about mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction are once again trying to stampede us into war. we have been there and done that and america is still paying a terrible, terrible price for their past failures, though they refuse to acknowledge them. protecting our embassy in
baghdad is one thing. if any president wants to launch military action, they need to come to this congress, just as president obama said he would do on syria, not a resolution from a different. if there is a case for war, come and here and make the case. don't rely on an open-ended resolution from long ago. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. you have 45 seconds. ms. lee: i yield to the 45 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: i thank my friend from california for this amendment, but also for her long standing work on this issue and related issues. when we hear about this impossible situation in which we finded ourselves in today in
iraq, with a country clammering for us to do something, we should be reminded how we got there and not something that has expired but something that still exists. and the gentlelady is absolutely right that we should repeal that, repudiate that, and yet ourselves on a new track, which requires deliberate attention by the congress if we are ever going to use military force and not a blank check to the administration. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the chair. stay tuned as our commander in chief and our allies contemplate future action in iraq as things get worst. a lot of innocent people are killed.
i'm respectful of the gentlewoman's passion and her continuing battle to get this matter straightened out, but the president is going to request congress to look at things and we should stay tuned. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the derk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce section
526 of the energy and security independence act, public law 110-140, 42 unions code, 14172. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628 and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. flores: i rise to offer and amendment which addresses another misguided regulation. section 526 regulation prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of fuels unless . eir greenhouse fuels my amendment is simple. it would stop the government from enforcing the ban on agencies funded by the department of defense appropriations bill from being forced to comply with section 526. he initial compliance was to
buy coal to liquids jet fuel and we must ensure our military has adequate fuel resources and rely on the more stable sources of fuel. one of the unintended consequences, it forces the american military to require fuel from unstable middle eastern resources. i offered this amendment in fiscal 12, 13 and 14 and each time they passed with bipartisan support. the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway added language to exempt the defense department. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the gentleman talks about the burden. the gentleman talks about the
requirement. i would talk about, our requirement to ease the burden on the american people as far as our continued dependency on sees' options er and we should never foreclose options for our military. there is a purpose for this requirement and this policy, because the department of defense is the largest entity on the planet earth relative to the purchase of fuel and is a perfect way to begin to wean rselves from our foreign sources. some argue this harms us. this is simply not the case. in july, the department of defense stated clearly the provision has not hindered the department from purchasing the fuel we need today worldwide to
support military operations but it develops the fuels that we will need in the future. the department itself supports section 526 recognizing that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, ir per son ell and marines are going to need more energy resources. this col complicate the department's efforts and take advantage of the promising developments in home-grown biofuels. i do believe that the amendment would damage the developing biofuels sector at the worst possible time for our economy. we need to create jobs, not to eliminate them. and could send a negative signal to america's biofuel industry and could have adverse impacts
in the world's leading technology. section 526 doesn't prevent federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to. instead, it simply prevents the federal government from propping up the makers of different types of carbon fuels with long-term contracts. developing and bringing advanced low-carbon biofuels to scale is a critical step in reducing the nation's dependency on oil. as someone who is possessed of the largest inland oil refinery in the united states of america in the first congressional district, we're going to sell a lot of oil but we ought to look at having a broad matrix and the department of defense is a place to start. i'm opposed to the gentleman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is ecognized.
mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. the opposition doesn't understand my amendment. this does nothing to restrict the department of defense from buying green fuel, biofuel or any other kind of fuel. what it does do is prevent the situation where the refinery in the gentleman's district, it turns out to start using canadian oil sands crude as one of their feed stocks, from preventing that refinery from not being able to sell its fuel to the military. the gentleman's sergeant exactly backwards. this allows the military to buy the fuel from whatever source, whether it's biofuels, conventional sources or some other coal to liquid source or canadian oil sands source. it gives them the greatest opportunity at the cheapest cost to buy the fuels to allow our war fighters to worry about taking care of defending this
country and not worrying about where the source of the fuel comes from. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. conyers of michigan. at the end of the bill, before she short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be obligated or expended to manpads to any entity in sir yasm the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman
from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam chair. there's one simple lesson we can take away from our involvement in conflict oversea ses, it's this. beware of unintended consequences. as was made vividly clear with u.s. involvement in afghanistan during the soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistants -- assistance or hyper weaponization of a conflict can have destabilizing consequences and ultimately undercut our own national interests. it's for this reason they offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, and others, prevent funds in this bill from ing used to transfer man
portable air defense systems, known as manpads, parties in the syrian civil war. manpads, also known as shoulder fired antiaircraft missiles, can be fired at an aircraft by individuals on the ground and easily hidden or transported in the trunk of a car. according to "the los angeles times," the u.s. and israeli officials have feared that they could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners, even. leaders of the syrian opposition movements have told "the wall street journal" and other news outlets that they are actively seek the transfer of manpads from the u.s. and our allies and that u.s. officials continue to consider these requests.
i urge the support of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: would the gentleman from michigan yield? mr. con quers -- mr. conyers: of course. mr. frelinghuysen: we accept your amendment. mr. visclosky: i also support the gentleman's amendment. mr. conyers: i thank both of the floor leaders and i want to make clear that this amendment will simply and -- ensure that no funds may be made available under this bill for the transfer of the devastatingly -- devastating and hoigly mobile weapons to any party -- highly mobile weapons to any party in the syrian civil war. regardless of one's opinion of
u.s. intervention in foreign conflicts this prudent and responsible amendment deserve ours support and thank the leaders for their support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the jlt from michigan. those in favor say aye -- by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. at the end of the bill, before the short sitele -- title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to design, implement, administer or
carry out the u.s. global climate research program, the intergovernmental panel on climate change's report. the united nations nation agenda 21, sustainable development plan, or the may, 2013, social updid on the social cost of carbon under executive order 12866. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from west virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment is identical to the one the house adopted last month to the national defense authorization act. it would prohibit the department of defense from spending money on climate change policies forced upon them by the obama administration. we shouldn't be diverting financial resources away if the
primary focus of our military at a time when we face many threats. look at what's happening around the globe isme rack is splintering. syria is still engulfed in a civil war. russia continues its threat against ukraine and crimea. north korea continues its saber rattling. iran refuses to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons. taliban threatens stability in afghanistan. and hamas has captured teenagers. holding them, one of them, an american teenager new york israel. isis, boko haram, al qaeda and other terrorist groups are threatening liberty and freedom around the world. madam speaker, we live in a dangerous world. yet our military is being forced to make due -- make do with less. spending precious resources to follow the obama climate change agenda will compromise our national security. then this same amendment was being adopted previously, some
people claimed the amendment would prevent the military from using science. that's not true. this amendment merely prevents the pentagon from spending money, precious money, to implement policies based on the obama administration's climate assessment and the united nations reports. these are widely acknowledged as political documents. adopted by people with an agenda. we should not be spending money pursuing ideological experiments when we face military challenges around the world. this amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for politically motivated agenda. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is
recognized. mr. visclosky: i rise to seek time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's comment that we should look around the world and see what's happening. i look in the pacific and i'm struck, because of the gentleman's concern about the department of defense, that the commander for the pacific command for the united states of , rica, pivoting to asia admiral locker, states that the single greatest threat to long-term peace in the pacific basin is climate change. these threats increase with the demand for energy if temperatures rise but also as natural disasters happen with greater frequency, causing increased operational demands on military forces serving in stability and supportive roles.
with these disturbing trends documented in most recent assessments, it would be irresponsible, i believe, to prevent continues assessment of this real and continuing threats. and i note that no money shall be used for the research program. what has happened in this country where we can't do research. what we do today is, let's not see anything. let's not hear anything. let's not learn anything. let's not research anything. if my parents took that attitude of, let's do nothing, we'd still be waiting for the interstate system to be built. it's time we do something, and this attack on research and inquisitiveness and seeking of knowledge, whether we agree on all the facts or not, is very disturbing to me and i am opposed to the gentleman's
amendment. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. >> with all due respect -- mr. mckinley: with all due respect to the minority leader, we are not in this amendment stopping research. and we're not denying that there's climate change occurring. we're merely saying that the political documents that we list in the amendment should not be used to be diverting money to implement those documents. there is ample research, there's ample reason to continue the work that we're doing, but we don't need to be using these documents that are widely acknowledged as politically driven documents. if we want to continue to research but not use these documents, these very specific documents. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would say that these documents are research oriented and technical updates. we ought to pursue knowledge. i'm opposed to the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used with respect to iraq in contra invention of the war powers resolution, 50,
u.s.c. ms. hanabusa: i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentlewoman from hawaii and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the hanabusa-garamendi seamed simple. it would ensure that president obama does not circumvent the war powers resolution by unilaterally committing u.s. forces to operations in iraq. i have opposed our involvement in iraq since 2002 and continue to oppose it today. on monday president obama invoked the war powers resolution to send an additional 275 troops into iraq, to increase security at the u.s. embassy in baghdad. today we heard possibly an additional 300 personnel. while i understand the need to send troops into iraq for the express purpose of providing security for u.s. personnel in
iraq, and this amendment would not prevent the additional embassy security recently announced by the administration, or any evacuation operations, i remain resolute that we should not resume combat operations in iraq. congress and the administration need to seriously consider the this would ctives achieve with further military involvement in iraq. we know the results when we don't know what the end game is. and we don't fully consider the consequences of military action. dismissed calculation is not worth repeating to involve our nation in a situation that is the result of a longstanding sectarian conflict. after over a decade of u.s. military action in the middle east, it has taken lives and cost too far high a cost of our nation's resources. we must let the iraqi people decide their own future. the wars in afghanistan and
iraq are estimated to have cost between $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to the force depleted. this monetary figure cannot come even close to measuring the human lives that were taken as a result of our involvement in the middle east. madam speaker, we simply cannot afford the options under consideration. u.s. forces should be on a new strategy for regional engagement, rather than the considering options that we get involved as we have in the past. this amendment would do that. i ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and ensure that the president abides by the law and does not put american lives at risk by involving u.s. troops in combat operations in iraq. and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. visclosky: if the gentlewoman would yield. i appreciate the gentlewoman for offering the amendment. i certainly would rise in support of it and certainly think it's acceptable to the committee. i would point out to my
colleagues, though, that if you would, your view has been anticipated. i would draw my colleague's attention to section 8113 of the underlying legislation, as well as section 9013. so i do not want anyone to think that the committee itself, including the chairman, was inattentive to the points you raise. ms. hanabusa: thank you very much. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves. does any member seek to claim time in opposition? the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hanabusa: i thank the chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee for accepting my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- the question is on the amendment -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from hawaii.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. e clerk: the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide weapons in syria. the chair: pursuant tos who resolution 62, the gentleman from nebraska, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. fortenberry: thank you,
madam chair. i believe this amendment is absolutely consistent with the underlying portions of the bill that reaffirm that the policy of the united states should be that we will not enter into armed conflict in syria. madam chair, along the syrian-turkish border there is a family, a mother, a father and six children, one of the children is named alias. alias one day in his hometown in syria was walking to school. he had his hand on the school room door. then all of a sudden he felt another hand come across his face and everything went dark as he was blind folded and kidnapped by a syrian rebel group in the name of liberating the syrian people. fortunately the family was able to get alias back but they had to flee to a refugee camp from their hometown in syria. but perhaps they're the lucky ones. because 160,000 other syrians
are dead. but let's make no mistake, the current president, the ruler of syria, assad, is responsible for many of these deaths. assad is a brutal tyrant. but many innocent syrians like alias and his family fear the rebel armies even more than assad. the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations. some of the most violent and successful rebel militias are linked to al qaeda. now, sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists, jihadists who would be all too eager to seize american weaponry, and it's already happened. the horror show now unfolding in iraq suggests that we have already unintentionally aided sociopathic zealots.
the murderous leaders of the so-called islamic state of iraq and syria have seized american humvees and weaponry from the dedidn't rating -- disintegrating iraqi army. a c.i.a. analyst on acid could not have imagined this nightmarish scenario a week ago. our best foreign policy analyst could not have foreseen the ferres toity and speed of the collapse of large portions of iraq. what we are witnessing is the development of a multinational was aye emirate ruled with the ruthless interpretation of shari'a law. the isis marches under the black flag of death. madam chair, the naive notion at we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted, making an
already terrible civil war even worse. the ad hoc army of syrian rebels, absent a broader multinational strategy in the region, is a recipe for disaster. for further disaster. look, i understand, this is a complicated situation. it is a hard situation. and there are no good options here. but we cannot afford to do something that may make the situation worse. in my judgment, -- judgment, the potential benefits from this policy do not outweigh this very significant risk. just talk to the people in the refugee camps. talk to muslim families, christian families who have had to flee their home. talk to them and i think we should all remember alias and what his family's had to go through. at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he'd like to consume to the congressman from
new york, representative chris gibson, army iraq war veteran, purple heart, professor at west point, thank you. mr. gibson: i thank my friend -- the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. gibson: i thank my friend and colleague and thank you, madam chair. madam chair, if another country gave arms to a rebel group or another country for the express purpose of attacking our country, we would view that act as an act of war. and -- but for some reason we don't hold ourselves to that same standard. if it is the intent of the administration to give arms to any group, then under our constitution the administration must first come here and debate it on the floor and get authorization from the people's representatives. and so, madam chair, i oppose us getting involved in the syrian civil war.
i believe that there's more that we can do diplomatically to isolate the assad regime. i don't think giving arms to any rebel group is in our best . terest but most certainly if that's ever to occur, there first has to be an authorization. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i seek recognition to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the heartfelt arguments and the concern of the gentleman who serves on the committee. we had a discussion of this amendment in committee and it did fail on a voice vote. i would agree with the gentleman when he said that the situation in syria, in that part of the world, is very complicated and that there are no good options. i can't argue that point either. he also stated that there are
significant risks if weapons are, if you would, provided and i could not deny that. but at some point in time, given the problems we have in that area of the world, and the people who have been displaced and who are in those refugee camps, i think we ought to keep what few unpleasant options we assume a to reasonable risk, if at some future point in time during the next year to year and a half, we can work to improve the situation. so with all due respect, in understanding the gentleman's concerns, i rise in opposition to the amendment. i'd be happy to yield to the chairman. >> let me say i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment but we appreciate the passion in which they make
their case. mr. frelinghuysen: and certainly mr. fortenberry and the committee did a very fine job. recognizing congressional concerns regarding u.s. -- potential u.s. involvement in syria, our bill, as you're aware, contains a provision, section 9013, which prohibits the introduction of u.s. military forces into hostilities in syria, accept in accordance -- except in accordance with the war powers act. the situation in syria is as dire as you've described it. we have about four million refugees outside the country doing incredible things to stabilize -- destabilizing one of our best allies jordan in a huge way. we had an opportunity to visit one of those refugee camps and we need to be mindful of the actions we take here and perhaps what we might be doing to limit the president's
assistance in our u.s. support for one of our greatest allies, two of our greatest allies in the middle east. both israel and jordan. so i think we ought to move with caution. we understand your underlying sentiment and in some ways we agree with it. but we don't think we ought to tie the administration's and the commander in chief's hands in the way that you've suggested. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. fortenberry: would the gentleman yield? i believe i'm out of time. so thank you. mr. visclosky: i'd be happy to yield what reminding time i have to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman and i thank you both, mr. chairman, as well as the ranking member, for this respectful dialogue. these are tough judgment calls, i understand that. in my judgment the risks do not outweigh the potential rewards here. until we have a strong, significant multinational strategy to contain this contagion, i believe an ad hoc
policy, which it appears to me we now have, by sending weapons into this area potentially could make the situation worse. as congressman gibson pointed out, it is the responsibility of congress to potentially revisit this issue if we need to reassess the situation and it becomes much clearer and necessitates u.s. action. but now, to me, and micon shens, it's important to say -- my conscience, it's important to say, last year we had a very strong bipartisan vote that demanded that u.s. troops would not, that the united states would not enter into military conflict in iraq -- in syria, excuse me, in syria. the american people spoke loudly and clearly and i think this is simply an extension of that understanding. i understand the differences of opinion here in judgment and i very much appreciate the time and the respect accorded me. thank you very much. i yield back. mr. visclosky: and i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman is recognized. mr. fortenberry: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed -- proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, madam chair, grayson number 40. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to transfer aircraft, including unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, tox co-logical agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment, launched missiles, guided
missiles, torpedos, bomb, mines or nuclear weapons as identified for demilitarization purposes outlined in the defense manual through the department of defense excess personnel property program established pursuant to section 1033 of public law 104-201, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1997. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, madam chair you may recall, yesterday i gave an impassioned plea in favor of a different version of this amendment which was ruled out of order. i'm hoping for a better result tonight. in any event there's only so much passion in the world so i'll keep my remarks short. i rise today to address a growing problem throughout our country which is the militarization of local law enforcement agencies.
"the new york times" recently reported that police departments have received thousands of piece os -- pieces of camouflage and night vision equipment and hundreds of silencers and armored cars from the department of defense. these are military weapons. that's ais alling -- appalling. that's why my amendment would prevent the department of defense from gifting excess equipment, including aircraft, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers and bombs, to local police departments. those weapons have no place in our streets regardless of who may be deploying them. as "the new york times" article, "war gear flows to police departments" explains, police swat teams now deploy tens of thousands of times each year, increasefully for routine jobs. masked, heavily armed police officerses in louisiana raided a nightclub as part of a liquor inspection. in florida, officers in swat gear and with guns drawn carried
out raids on barbershops that led mostly to charges of, quote, barbering without a license. one department takes a tank they received from the department of defense to schools and community events. the department spokesman calls the tank a conversation starter. i don't think this is the way i want my america to be. i think we should help our police act like public servants, not like warriors, at war. i think we should facilitate a view of america where the streets are safe and they don't resemble a war zone, no matter who is deploying that equipment. we don't want america to look like an occupied territory. i hope for support of my colleagues and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the department of defense excess property program provides excess military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counternarcotics, counterterrorism operations and to enhance officer safety. it's provided aircraft, including helicopters, small planes, four wheel drive vehicles such as pickup trucks and ambulances that can be used for mobile command vehicles for search warrant entry teams. it's provided vests and helmets to protect officers and other equipment. coming from a state and a region which suffered many deaths on september 11, 2001, we welcome this equipment. it's not misused. and the law enforcement agencies in the northeast that benefit from this equipment have used it to make sure that all of our citizens are protected, not only in the northeast but let me
yield to the gentleman for a comment as a former sheriff. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman to make some comments. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. chairman. as a past sheriff, we utilized that equipment in a responsible way. all the helicopters we had in our fleet are all surplus helicopters that flew as far back as vietnam. some of the weapons we have come from the military. we didn't receive any bombs. but at the end of the day, you can always find misuses of any equipment that's given or utilized by law enforcement. it's the responsibility of those communities to keep that law enforcement agency in check. but to just outright ban the usage of that equipment would devastate local law enforcement agencies across the nation, not just in florida, but everywhere. so with that, mr. chairman, i do appreciate your comments. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time and thank the
gentleman from florida for his comments. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: what we're seeing is not so much a question of whether the equipment is being occasionally misused, the question is whether it's ever properly used. can any of the gentlemen here tonight or anyone else identify a single act of terrorism that was thwarted by handing police officers helicopters that are militarized, bombs, and all sorts of gear that you don't expect to see -- that you only expect to see on the battlefield. in fact, i venture to say the only examples -- examples we can come up with of actual use of these objects is the misuse of objects. the examples i gave pointed out in national media, these weapons are not being used to defeat terrorism on our streets. where is the terrorism on our streets? instead, they're being used to arrest barbers. and to terrorize the general
population. one may venture to say that the weapons are often used by a majority to terrorize a minority. and certainly we know many cases, both recent and in the deep, dark past, where police have used their weapons improperly, for the sake of brutality. it used to be they could only use billy clubs or guns. now they can use helicopters and bombs. before long, i suppose, given the logic propounded by my colleagues, they'll be able to deploy nuclear weapons. that's not an america i want to live in i respectfully submit that this amendment deserves support. we are not cutting off any use of any equipment that's already in the field. on the contrary, that is gone. that's out the door. but bear in mind that under the current program, these weapons are given without any strings attached. these are weapons of mass destruction. and they're deployed within our borders, by our military, to our law enforcement. that's not something i can abismede i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from
florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield additional time to the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i've heard a lot of things in my life as a sheriff and 30 years in law enforcement but first of all, the federal government does not give local law enforcement or any law enforcement bombs. the helicopters that local law enforcement receives are demilitarized, they're stripped out of any capability of having weapons in them. those are used to save people's lives. they're used to find guys that have murdered people. or rapists. this is absolutely ludicrous to think that the equipment utilized by law enforcement is used for any reason other than public safety interests, and it happens across this nation every ay in a responsible way. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for his comments.
these are not weapons of mass destruction. what a ridiculous characterization. respectfully, these vehicles, these aircraft, are used to protect american citizens and law enforcement, the law enforcement community uses them wisely and they are overseen by responsible elected officials. i register my strong opposition to this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: i think my colleagues must be attacking some other amendment, not this amendment. this is not an amendment that restricts the distribution of guns or ammunition. rather this is an amendment that restricts the distribution of armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, tox co-logical agents, biological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedos, bombs, mines and nuclear weapons. unfortunately, madam chair, those are legally permitted to be distributed to law
enforcement under current law. that's what i'm trying to prevent here. i reserve the balance of my kime. the chair: the gentleman reserves. is the gentleman ready to close? the gentleman from new jersey has yielded back. mr. grayson: all right, then i -- yes. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, madam cheer. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment after the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grayson: i respectfully ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from florida will be postpone 68 for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.
the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. nugent of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: thank you, madam chair. the amendment treats the national forward dual status military technicians as uniformed personnel in the event of furlough. dual-status technicians are people.d, they are trained to perform a particular job in the armed forces, and drill like other guards men. however these duel service technicians are the one -- dual service technicians are the ones that keep the equipment operational. my son serves in the florida
national guard. blackhawk pilot. these dual service technicians are there all week long to make sure the helicopters he flies are viable, are safe, and can do a mission. when they were furloughed last time, under this president, we lost the ability to respond to natural disasters within the state of florida. when we had hurricane season in the helicopter -- hurricane season and the helicopters were not flyable buzz our dual certified technicians have been furloughed, not treated like other military personnel, full-time, we lost the cape to believe the respond to issues that our state -- that are state issues. more than that, this same unit that i'm talking about, and it goes across this nation regarding national guard units and dual service technicians, they deemployeed to afghanistan, to iraq, and when they deployed, they actually go with them
because they're in uniform. they're military. but because of the gray area they fall in, when they can be furloughed by the president, like they did this last time, and we had to come to this floor to talk about that issue, mr. palazzo and i had the same amendment last time, which passed, unanimously, i believe, buzz it protects not only the states but our national mission of self-defense here in the homeland and being able to project the force we need. so at the end of the day, these technicians, who during the day wear a uniform of the united states, this time would be the army, in keeping the equipment serviceable and operational, and in this instance, they were blackhawk helicopters, they were furloughed. and guess what, they could only be there when they were on the drill weekend. unfortunately, three days out of
a month is not enough to keep a blackhawk operational. so this is really important. we're lucky this time that sequestration is put off in 2015. but that doesn't stop the command for the chief from changing that. and furloughing these employees at another reason to save money. end of the day, it's about readiness. we should do nothing that hurts readiness in our military, whether it's national guard or reservists. but particularly, and i'll tell you from my standpoint in the state of florida, that is hurricane prone. those blackhawks deliver rescue capability that no other vehicle provides for. and we need to make sure those dual-service technicians are treated with respect and kept on the payroll to do the job of keeping our military active, that reserve component, the
national guard, keep them ready to respond to emergencies here at home and abroad. i absolutely yield. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the jelled for yielding, thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention. it's parent we get this right and you put a very personal face on something which needs correction to make sure we don't go through this again. appreciate your taking up this challenge and doing it so well. thank you for yielding. mr. nugent: mr. chairman, i appreciate it, i appreciate your comments and the work you've done on this. with that, madam chair, i reserve, unless there's -- the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i seek recognition in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. visclosky: thank you mafment dam chair, i seek the time because i agree with the -- thank you, madam chair, i seek the time because i agree with the assertion of the gentleman and that is the
service that is provided by the military technicians he's looking to exempt. agree with every word he said. i want to make it clear to my colleagues that these civilian employees, as a condition of their employment, are a member of the unit in which they work. my problem is, there are other people who are employed by the federal government who also do very important work and i would include everyone who is in the federal service. i have always take umbrage, regardless of who was in charge of an administration, making distinctions between essential or nonessential employees. if you do not have an essential job, i do not know why you are working for anyone. i find it abhorrent that we lock federal employees out. i find it abhorrent that we
malign federal employees who are working very hard. and again i agree with the gentleman as far as the value of these military technicians. but i made the point when this government was shut down last october, and i opposed it, that people wanted to eye mill rate the discomfort because the federal government does nothing for me. and i'm also sick of hearing that. my suggestion was, not wanting to shut the government down, well, then no federal employee should go to work. and i happen to use o'hare international airport a long time, maybe people should sit there because f.a.a. employees do very important work to keep us safe when we're at 38,000 feet. i think all those civilian employees who are doing very important medical work at our hospitals, treating those who are wounded and danieled in body and mind -- damaged in body and mind because of their service, i think of federal
fire fighters who have lost their lives, who have been injured fighting fires. i think of f.b.i. civilian employees who risk their lives every day. i think of those in the border patrol who risk their lives every day. i think of civilian employees at coast guard and obviously i could go on. so the one concern i have with the gentleman's amendment is we should not be discerning and choosing. we should either be all-inclusive or exclusive. and the fact is we would be better spent doing our work, getting our budgets done and never furloughing any federal employee again, all of whom are essential. and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i certainly do appreciate the ranking member's comments about other federal employees. and i'm the last one to malign federal employees. but this is specifically in regards to -- if you remember
back when we passed pay our military act, it was in that act that allowed for the president and the department of defense to make that determination, that these folks were essential. they decided that they weren't. and in fact we know they are because they're the ones, like i said, that keep the equipment operational. that allows our pilots, in particular plaque hawk pilots, the ability to fly. to respond to missions at home and abroad. and so while i don't disagree with a lot of what the ranking member said, this is really about those that wear the uniform of this country and allowing them to make sure that they're paid, a, and make sure that they're on duty to keep that equipment operational. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the the ent offered by
gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speier of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, added following new section. section 10002, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement executive order 12473 of april 13, 1984. as amended by executive order 13669 of june 13, 2014. as those amendments apply to section 405-i of the rules for court marshal. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentlewoman from california, and a member
opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: thank you, madam chair. last friday the president signed executive order 13669 which amended the manual for courts marshal. this order delivers a significant blow to an already broken military justice system that will further revictimize service members brave enough to come forward and report that they have been sexually assaulted. specifically contained in this executive order is a provision that makes military rule of evidence 412 admissible in article 32 preliminary proceedings. this particular rule of evidence outlines when previous sexual history is admissible in court martial proceedings and is currently applied to make l sorts of demeaning and irrelevant inewe endows about -- inewe endoughs about the victim's previous history.
rape shield laws have been passed by virtually every state in the union and i question i have is why should service members be considered second class citizens in this country? shockingly, this order doubles down on this harmful rule and allows the sexual history to be admissible at preliminary hearings. under the worse, order, the convening authority will be able to read and consider evidence deemed inadmissible by the article 32 hearing. the military has clearly learned nothing from the wilkerson case in italy. you may remember that general franklin, the convening authority, justified overturning a court martial jury that convicted wilkerson of having sexually assaulted a woman and even though he was convicted by five colonels, peers of his, the general was able to look at inadmissible evidence that the judge had
ruled out of order and consider that in overturning the decision. this amendment will prohibit funds to implement the component of executive order 13369, to prevent this harmful and wrong-headed provision to go into effect. this order ewe surps and reverses the -- usurps and reverses the progress that's been made and i hope my colleagues will support the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. visclosky: if the gentlelady will yield. i appreciate her yielding. i appreciate her devotion to the issue. and to the victims of these crimes and rise in strong support of her position and appreciate not only her work but her offering the amendment today. the chair: the gentleman from california -- mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentlelady yield? ms. speier: yes, i do. mr. frelinghuysen: i served on the naval academy board for five years and i know there's some issues in some people's mind as to whether this
executive order either strengthens or weakens the case for rape shield but i was appalled by what happened there. so i'm supportive of what you're doing and there maybe some arguments people have as to whether you're strengthening or weakening it, but your desire is to strengthen and make this unacceptable behavior go away. ms. speier: that is correct. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm supportive of that. i congratulate the gentlewoman on your efforts. i was on the academy board of visitors for a number of years. the inability of the leadership of that academy, and to think that this midshipman had to go through this, 30 hours, outrageous. so i commend you for what you've put forward here. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: yield back to you. thank you. the chair: does anyone seek recognition in opposition to the amendment?
the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. speier: with that i will yield back the balance of my time and i thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment, 152, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. bill, before he the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be used to pay for storage for patrol boats secured under the department of navy memorandum number 105-e-2-p-196 dated october 12, 2010.
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 62, the gentleman from arizona, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chair. i rise today to offer a commonsense, cost-saving amendment to the department of defense appropriation act for the fiscal year 2015. specifically, my amendment prohibits the federal government from wasting more money on storage for eight patrol boats which have cost taxpayers $3 million, have never been used and have been sitting in storage for almost four years. recent media reports and an inspector general's report brought this issue to my attention and the wasteful spending involved is deplorable. in 2010 the federal government spent more than $3 million on patrol boats for the afghan national police that were never shipped to the land-locked afghanistan. even more troubling, the cost of each patrol boat was more than $265,000 each. "the washington post" has reported that similar patrol boats can be purchased in the
united states for approximately $50,000 each. the office of inspector general for afghanistan was so concerned about this waste of taxpayer money that it conducted an investigation and recently released a report. the report includes a letter dated april 24, 2014, from the inspector general to the commanding general of the combined security transition command for afghanistan. i would like to share a few excerpts from that letter. i am writing to request information on a $3 million procurement of patrol boats for the afghan national police initiated by the combined security transitional command for afghanistan in 2010. my focus is on the operational requirements that initiated the procurement of the patrol boats for the afghan national police and the reasons for the cancellation nine months later. additionally, i am also interested in the requirement for the united states government to pay for the storage and related expenses for these boats for the last three years. boats that apparently have no
planned use. accordingly, to officials at the defense security cooperation agency, the patrol boats were manufactured and delivered to the navy in 2011, and have been in storage at the naval weapons station in virginia ever since. the full report goes on to detail some other troubling -- troubling findings which include missing storage records, missing expenditure authorizations and justifications and missing documents which should detail the reasons for canceling the procurement order. the inspector general's june 6, 2014, letter is even more harsh as it states, i continue to have concerns because the combined security transitional command for afghanistan was unable to answer a significant number of my questions regarding the patrol boats. the list of unanswered questions is particularly troubling. further, the combined security transitional command for afghanistan's response indicated that its security assistance office led a review board that determined that the boats do not fill a valid requirement for afghanistan.
to help the inspector general better understand how these decisions are made and to help us prepare lessons learned reports intended to avert the waste of u.s. taxpayer dollars and funds in the future, please provide a detailed accountability of all the elements of the security assistance office review boats with proceedings which led to that decision, including transcripts, testimony and exhibits. by letter today, i've also requested the department of navy to provide their plans for disposition of these boats. i wholeheart lid agree with the inspector general and not another penny of federal taxpayer dollars should be spent on these boats that cost $3 million to produce, were never utilized and have been sitting in storage since 2011. these boats neither -- either need to be put in the water or resold for federal law. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of my commonsense amendment that will ensure better use of taxpayer money and with that i reserve the balance of my time. .